Post navigation

21 thoughts on “The “Tax Cuts For The Rich””

Well, I expect politicians to be lyin’ thievin’ sheep-heardin’ bushwhackers….

The REAL demagogues and the real people at fault here is the MSM – part of the White House-Reid/Pelosi-MSM Tripartite Axis – who hid, buried, smoothed over, demagogued, skewed and otherwise failed to execute their primary duty of informing the masses honestly.

If the media wanted to point out demagoguery and “inform the masses honestly” it would draw some attention to the fact that the GOP, which spent all year attacking Obama for cutting Medicare and promising to never, ever cut it by a penny, is now insisting on immediately increasing the Medicare eligibility age, plus a few hundred billion in other cuts, as a condition of avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Has a major party ever done such a quick U-turn on such a big issue without even a whisper of comment in the MSM?

“Has a major party ever done such a quick U-turn on such a big issue without even a whisper of comment in the MSM?”

Yes it’s called the Democratic Party. The MSM has smothered stories, buried them in back pages if they printed them at all, countless times. They even outright lied for a Dem flip flop.

The GOP idea of means testing has been around for years. Even some Dems like the idea.

Try again. You have no case here. The amount of times we’ve seen “Oh NOW you tell us…” posts concerning Dem perfidy, cover-ups of true data dissembling and outright lying that have come to light juuuuust after the election is mind numbing.

And then there are the things the dems haven’t flip flopped on such as racist laden gun control, and economic programs. There the MSM have been silet all along.

They aren’t just talking about means testing, they’re talking about taking benefits away from millions of seniors. Just six weeks ago the Republicans were swearing up and down that they’d fight to the death to prevent changes to Medicare for people who are currently 55 or older. Today the Republicans are not just allowing, but insisting, that those people be denied Medicare outright until they are 67.

In the debates Obama told the audience that they couldn’t trust Republicans on Medicare. He’s been proven 100% correct.

Every single time the GOP has talked about raising an age limit, they REPEAT ENDLESSLY that it doesn’t apply to present seniors 55 and over. They do not want to affect recipients or soon-to-be recipients.

Why do you choose to ignore that? Are you being willfully obtuse? Or are you just ignorant?

“Today the Republicans are not just allowing, but insisting, that those people be denied Medicare outright until they are 67.”

Who are “those people”? What age?

Which republicans? When? In what Bill? To whom were they saying this?

Prove it.

And while you’re at it, explain why raising the age limit is a problem given the longer life spans and healthy lives of people today – so long as it doesn’t apply to present Medicare recipients.

You’ve been trained well by the Obama-Reid/Pelosi-MSM Tripartite Pact….they scream that the GOP will *remove* Medicare from 66 year olds now getting it when nothing could be further from the truth.

The overall tax system, including all taxes, should be progressive. The top 0.1% should pay a higher share of income in taxes than the top 1%, who should pay a higher share of income than the top 10%, and so on.

1) More tapioca from your head. I asked you to SPECIFY what is the percentage that represents fair share:

“What is the number? What’s the percentage?”

You give me inanities…tapioca. Evasion. That’s really your position isn’t it? Evasion. Not facts. Not statements of precision. You have no answer – you’ve demonstrated that. We all knew that, actually. That’s why I asked the question. You don’t know what you want. You don’t know why you want what you think you want.

You just know you want to rage and punish and hurt and destroy.

2) It’s already astoundingly progressive. You either are way too ignorant to know that – in which case why are you wasting our time and yours. Or you know it’s progressive but you choose to ignore that fact.

Which is it? If the latter? Why do you ignore it?

Now what’s the exact percentage people should pay? What is the definition of fair share?

The economy didn’t rebound until the Republican congress took control and started cutting the spending. We would have balanced the budget in the late 90’s even with W’s tax rates. Just as we were heading back to a balanced budget absent a mortgage meltdown which was the result of policies George Bush inherited from the Clinton presidency.

The top tax rate was raised on people making $250,000 or more back in 1993. Problem is you have to figure in inflation. Someone making $250,000 dollars today was the same as someone making $185,000 in 1993. So if you were really wanting to do an apples to apples comparison of returning to Clinton rates we should be advocating on raising rates for people making $315,000 or more a year. Though when your side equivocates raising rates on “millionaires and billionaires” as a tax hike on people making $250,000 a year, what’s being off by 65,000 here or there gonna matter.

It’s figured in, because tax brackets are indexed to inflation. Back in 1993 the 36% tax bracket started at $115k; for 2012 that bracket (which Bush dropped to 33%) starts at $217k.

Obama proposes going back to Clinton rates for two brackets starting at $230k (for a married couple filing jointly) in 2009 dollars; so the actual cutoff for 2013 would be about $246k (due to inflation since 2009). Why $230k? Because taxpayers in that income range typically have a minimum of $20k in exemptions and deductions, so you’d have to have the magic $250k in gross income to reach the bracket. That $20k is a minimum; a typical household (e.g. with a mortgage, state income tax and kids) will have much bigger deductions, and so will need over $300k in income to reach the next-to-top bracket, and close to $500k to reach the top bracket.

Thank you for only reinforcing my point. The tax hikes are being presented like they are a return to the Clinton rates at earners making 250k. It’s not — its a sound bit. Your excellent analysis only provides all the detail information I need.

The tax hikes are being presented like they are a return to the Clinton rates at earners making 250k. It’s not

Yes, it is a return to Clinton rates for income above 250k in 2009 dollars. In 2009 dollars because Obama originally proposed that the change take effect in 2009; it’s closer to $270k in 2013 dollars, which is the soonest it could actually happen.

For years, Democrats and familiar morons have railed against the Bush “Tax Cuts for the Rich.” Now that those cuts may be finally coming to an end, they’re railing about how returning to the Clinton Tax Rates will be harmful to the middle class. It seems they’ve finally come around to the understanding we’ve been telling them all along – those Bush Tax Cuts (extended by Obama) cut tax rates for everyone. Those who pay the most in taxes got the most benefit but anyone with reportable income paid lower rates. Get ready for the return of the marriage penalty as well as millions more families being impacted by the Alternative Minimum Tax (which, like the Income Tax itself) was sold to the public as a tax on “the rich.” Unfortunately, they never indexed the taxes for inflation, so the income levels that qualified for “the rich” in the late 1960s when the AMT was passed are decidedly middle class today.

No, just people who owe federal income taxes (which, as Republicans love to point out, means about half of “everyone”). They don’t do anything for the person whose federal tax burden is 100% payroll taxes (which, at 15%, take a bigger share of income than the taxes paid by the likes of Mitt Romney).

Bush included cuts for lower-income earners as the political price for the top rate cut. The GOP’s current resistance to extending cuts for 98% of earners (and the first $250k of income earned by the top 2%) shows that, for them, it’s all about the big earners.

Romeny makes his money off of dividends, which are already taxed once at the corporate rate. Means testing taxes on investing income would be an interesting way to go but Democrats never go for it. Probably because they hate old people and want them to die in the streets right?

Why not raise taxes on everyone? Our economy was good under the high taxes of Clinton so raising taxes on everyone means the economy will recover right?

Who cares if the rich get taxed more, after all they voted for Obama and helped him buy the election. Here is another place where Democrats could work with Republicans to exclude small businesses from increased taxes but they wont do it because it isn’t about what is best for the economy. It’s about an ideology that seeks to punish rich people and business in general out of fairness.

Means testing taxes on investing income would be an interesting way to go but Democrats never go for it

And yet it’s part of Obamacare.

Why not raise taxes on everyone?

I think we should, once unemployment is under 6%. But politically it’s a non-starter.

Who cares if the rich get taxed more, after all they voted for Obama

No, they didn’t. Romney won voters with family income over $250k by 55% to 42%, according to the Fox New exit poll.

Democrats could work with Republicans to exclude small businesses from increased taxes

So exempt a lawyer who makes $1m/year because technically his income comes from a small business? Why?

an ideology that seeks to punish rich people and business in general out of fairness

The GOP ideology is that the rich, especially the very rich, should not have to make any sacrifices for the sake of deficit reduction, that the burden should be borne entirely by the people who most depend on government benefits and services. The Democrats just want the rich to be included.

Here is an even better example of the despiccable nature of the lib-Dem-lefty-soccie types. It comes from France, but the same thing happens here:

So you have all these Euro-enthusiasts who want to turn over their lives to the EU central planning government, and who have yelled for decades that the only way to peace is to eradicate nationalism.

Nationalism and exceptionalism is bad (see Obama: “We think we are exceptional in the same way the Greeks think they are exceptional…”). Must be wiped out.

And yet……

Just today we see an article inn the Telegraph where Jean-Marc Ayrault (PM of La Belle France) excoriates those who are now fleeing France to escape the Socialist’s destructive high taxes:

“Jean-Marc Ayrault’s outburst came after France’s best-known actor, Gerard Dépardieu, took up legal residence in a small village just over the border in Belgium, alongside hundreds of other wealthy French nationals seeking lower taxes.

“Those who are seeking exile abroad are not those who are scared of becoming poor,” the prime minister declared after unveiling sweeping anti-poverty measures to help those hit by the economic crisis.

These individuals are leaving “because they want to get even richer,” he said. “We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity,” he added.

“Thankfully, few are seeking exile to exempt themselves from being in solidarity with fellow Frenchmen.” ”

but wait….these are the same people that want to dilute nationalism…NOW they want solidarity with Frenchmen?

Much the same way people are fleeing California for Texas.

Just like Our beloved Jimster here:

You don’t know what you REALLY want nor do you have a sound basis for anything you say. No principle other than socialism and stealing other people’s property if they have more than you. What you deem as bad yesterday, is now great today so long as it supports the hallucination of the moment.

Youhave no idea what you are saying…..But you are going to say it anyway.